CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 avril 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }     Communicated on 17 April 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 68842/13 Șerban MARINESCU against Romania lodged on 21 October 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Şerban Marinescu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Popescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 2 June 2007, after a verbal argument with a taxi driver, the taxi driver drove the applicant against his will to a police station. When the applicant entered the police station and informed the police that he would like to lodge a complaint against the taxi driver he was allegedly insulted and beaten by three unidentified police officers. Subsequently he was handcuffed for twenty minutes to a metal rail. On 5 June 2007 the applicant brought criminal proceedings against the three police officers for abuse of office by restricting his rights, abusive behaviour and insult. In addition he asked the investigating authorities to identify the three police officers and the taxi driver involved in the incident. On 26 June 2007 the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute concluded in a medical expert report, produced following the applicant’s request, that the applicant had suffered traumatic injuries which could have been cause by hitting with a solid body, scratching and finger compression on 2 June 2007. The injuries required seven to eight days of medical treatment. On 1 July 2009 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office, after it had identified the three police officers and the taxi driver involved in the incident, discontinued the criminal investigation opened by the applicant on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed. The applicant appealed the decision before the domestic courts. On 1 June 2010 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office decision as ill-founded. The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. On 29 June 2010 the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and referred the case back to the first-instance court for re-examination. It held that the first-instance court had failed to examine all aspects of the applicant’s complaint. On 22 September 2010 the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’s appeal against the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office decision of 1   July 2009 and ordered the prosecutor’s office to re-open the criminal investigation. It held that the prosecutor’s office had examined only part of the complaints lodged by the applicant against the three police officers. The police officers appealed on points of law against the judgement. On 18 November 2010 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the police officers’ appeal on points of law as ill-founded. On 2 December 2011 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation against the three police officers on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed. The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts. On 14 March 2012 the Bucharest District Court allowed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 2 December 2011 and ordered the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office to re-open the criminal investigation in respect of the three police officers. It held inter alia that the prosecutor investigating the case had not heard the applicant directly and had not clarified the circumstances of the incident and of the applicant’s injuries. The proceedings are still pending before the domestic authorities. The applicant attached to his initial letter to the Court several photographs allegedly taken in the police station with his mobile phone which show him in handcuffs and chained to a rail and with a bleeding injury under his right eye. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by State agents because he was beaten and abusively handcuffed. In addition, the subsequent criminal investigation was lengthy and ineffective. Invoking Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that he had no access to a domestic remedy for the impugned breaches of his rights as protected by Article 3.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, as a result of the alleged ill-treatment by the police on 2 June 2007 ? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?